Pahl

*884 MEMORANDUM ***

Cindy Pahl appeals from her conviction for passing a fictitious United States financial instrument on a theory of aiding and abetting liability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the district court’s decision to deny the defense’s motion for a continuance on the first day of trial was not in error and because the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, we affirm.

A. SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Ms. Pahl first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Both Ms. Pahl and the government agree on what the government’s burden was at trial. To convict Mr. Moffet of passing a fictitious U .S. financial instrument, the sight draft, the government was required to prove:

18 U.S.C. § 514 (2000). To convict Ms. Pahl on a theory of aiding and abetting liability, the government was required to prove:

18 U.S.C. § 2…